Political commentary

I'm alive, just haven't been posting because I haven't been playing. I'm up visiting friends for a couple of weeks, and just haven't felt the bug to get that much poker in.

I don't tend to get political in this blog but I came upon something quite interesting:

Here is a commentary from Democratic political correspondent James Carville over at the Washington Post. The gist of the article is that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama for president, despite Richardson owing much of his political success to appointments made under Bill Clinton. For this "disloyalty", Carville went so far as to compare Richardson to Judas Iscariot.

Despite being a hyperventilation in a tone generally more reserved for the Ann Coulter crowd, I see two serious flaws in Carville's logic. The first is a fairly unique facet of this election that plays to underlying problems in our dynastic mindset as America. The second is a direct commentary on what's wrong with politics in America today.

The first problem with Carville's logic is his baseless assumption that whatever loyalty Governor Richardson owes to Bill Clinton should necessarily extend to Hillary. Unless you buy the cynical argument that Bill would actually be in charge should Hillary be elected (or that from '92-'00, Hillary was actually in charge), it makes no sense at all. Does the fact that Richardson owes some of his success to Bill Clinton make him indebted to the Clinton family for the remainder of his natural life? If Chelsea runs for office, is he required to support her? If you actually think about it, it's ludicrous. Hillary is not Bill.

But of course, that's not really how we tend to think in this country. It goes to show that we still think in terms of dynasties. Kennedy. Clinton. Bush. Their success across multiple family members has perpetuated the frame of mind that these are the only real players in politics today, and that everyone else must necessarily be a pawn in their game.

That seems an extreme extrapolation but it makes perfect sense. Carville's argument only begins to get off the ground if you make the assumption that Bill and Hillary Clinton, as a political unit, are one and the same. It's not true. They are independent as politicians and Hillary's potential rise to the presidency could mean very drastically different things for the country than Bill's did. The notion that loyalty to one necessarily must transfer to loyalty to the other bespeaks a very flawed mindset as to what Hillary represents as a politician, and is only really possible because we still think in terms of dynasties.

The other egregious flaw in Carville's logic is his bare assumption that loyalty *should* trump all other considerations when making an endorsement. It provides a piece of evidence to what really is a sad fact: the differences between Democrats and Republicans are not nearly as significant as many of us would like.

After all, isn't one of the most sticking complaints about the Bush administration the simple fact that Bush, in his eight disastrous years as President, has consistently valued loyalty over competence? It's been the driving impedus for at least two of his major scandals. That's why he had Alberto Gonzales fire all of those US Attorneys: they were by and large either pressing corruption cases against Republicans, or failing to progress corruption cases against Democrats with qutie enough speed. It's also, indirectly, why someone within his administration (my money's on Rove) unquestionably committed High Treason by outing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Her husband, a reporter, was saying nasty things about some Republicans and they wanted some petty payback. It could also be blamed indirectly for a portion of some other of the colossal Bush fuck-ups; Katrina comes to mind, what with his appointment of a frat buddy (rather than someone that might actually be able to manage the branch) to the head of FEMA. It's a mindset that led, if not to the Iraq War itself, to much of the fucked-up-edness of much of the postwar; bringing in every conceivable social conservative program to Iraq when what was actually needed was an immediate surge to quell the militias before they gained too much momentum. In each of these situations the mindset is much the same: to hell with the country, to hell with the results, to hell with finding an actual solution. Do as much as we can for our team.

So, in essence, Carville is advocating that Democrats must share that exact same mentality. That, rather than endorse who he actually, honestly feels would make the better President, Richardson should automatically (and thus mindlessly) endorse the team he should be a de facto member of. It says that Democrats are every bit as required to value loyalty over competence as the Republicans are.

Does anyone actually place any value on an endorsement that is given largely because it is expected to be given? For example, how many people do you actually think are going to vote for McCain because he got an endorsement from President Bush? How many swing voters will that shocking event really sway? If the answer is none, and it is, then that endorsement is worthless.

If Carville's priorities were followed to the letter, and people only made endorsements because of what they were expected to do, then all endorsements would be equally worthless.

And, interestingly enough, the fact that Barack Obama represents a change from that sort of mentality is exactly why he's getting my vote.